adidas shoes: is everyone brainwashed?

Bummer, tried on some Boost today (again) and just don't fit well... the upper is quite cheap.

Eocl wrote:

Bummer, tried on some Boost today (again) and just don't fit well... the upper is quite cheap.

At least you could have told us the model you tried on. As I've said before, I hate the "Techfit" uppers. Too constricting, too cheap looking, and of doubtful durability. At least try on the Supernova Glide Boost before you generalize about all models. I think you'll be pleasantly suprised because there is nothing "quite cheap" in either feel or appearance in the non-Techfit uppers. It is a nice, traditional, apparently durable mesh.

The Energy Boost does come in ESM which is different than what I think that you are describing with the techfit upper.

Also, the price is based on the Boost to EVA ratio. The Adios, Energy Boost, and Adistar are all about 80/20. The Boston, Sequence, and Glide are about 60/40, iirc.

C'mon LRC. Let's be honest here. I actually love the adios boost. I think it's a great shoe if it fits you well and packs quite a bit of protection into a really lightweight package. I love the responsiveness.

But really, if you put the same shoe on all the fastest guys in the world, it's going to be worn for all the best times. adidas could be putting almost anything on these guys and still be getting tons of fast times.

Now, there should be something to be noticed by the fact that all of those athletes picked the adios out of adidas' whole line to race in.

Some additional points need to be made, possibly clearing up confusion.

Blown molded TPU in closed cellular form (ie.e, BOOOOOOST) is NOT lunarlite, lunarfoam, lunarlon. Sorry, but it is not. It is not some form of EVA, doing what EVA does. Sorry, but it is not. In is not Zoom Unit. Sorry, but it is not.

It is the one and only, BOOOOOST!

Carry on.

Some pictures of the mystical BOOOOST energy capsules are found on this page:

http://www.core77.com/blog/materials/adidas_announces_new_boost_foam_material_24390.asp

Think of all the 'air-bag' contraptions Nike has attempted in trying to get that air-back shock absorption, and energy return. Then,look at all those big mystical energy cellsin the BOOOOST! Shazam!

Carry on!

boomtown rascals wrote:

You seem to think they don't work. So your problem is evidently the way they are marketed? The rulebook says nothing about marketing.

Almost. It would be in how they're marketed if they worked. The spirit of the rule seems to be that certain purposes for shoe technology are legit, and others aren't. If a legit "protection" midsole turned out bouncy by accident, then it's not really the designer's fault. But if they do it deliberately, then the purpose of the shoe runs afoul of the rule. Why else would it have that "shoes are for this, this and this and not for that" format?

But that's just how I interpret the rule, not what I think the rule should be. If booster-shoes did work, they should be banned whether they're marketed as such or not. IAAF should set some kind of bounciness limit and test shoes in labs before approving them.

Yes, $0.01 per mile. Excellent savings.

Le Chapeau wrote:

Doesn't that defy the equal and opposite reaction law?

Shoes would have to work on a dieseling effect to return more energy.

a few years ago there was a story that bikes were being X-ray scanned at the tour the france because of claims one team was using tiny engines that added a little extra boost for the mountain stages... I'm sure it's technologically feasible to add a nano-engine to a pair of shoes.

In my experience the boost midsole just doesn't collapse. I have a pair of adios boost with about 1000 miles on them, the dsp outsold is almost worn through to the midsole, the continental rubber bits are significantly worn but the midsole feels almost exactly the same. With a shoe with minimal midsole degrading you can virtually wear them until they fall apart. I used to wear the kinvara and durability was absolute crap, I could feel them collapsing after 200 miles, the upper fell to bits. They weren't even much cheaper!

el corredor wrote:

Le Chapeau wrote:

Doesn't that defy the equal and opposite reaction law?

Shoes would have to work on a dieseling effect to return more energy.

a few years ago there was a story that bikes were being X-ray scanned at the tour the france because of claims one team was using tiny engines that added a little extra boost for the mountain stages... I'm sure it's technologically feasible to add a nano-engine to a pair of shoes.

Ryder Hesjedal still rides one of those motor bikes.... Watch the video and judge for yourself.

It may be technologically possible to build shoes like that but it's not feasible.

el corredor wrote:

I'm sure it's technologically feasible to add a nano-engine to a pair of shoes.

Adidas did design a shoe with nano engines inside the sole about 10 years ago:

I think that the nano engines altered the cushioning properties of the shoe according to the surface that you ran on. The concept was not so much about energy return and the shoe was quite heavy.

Wait, are we saying nike or adidas is better?

Agree with the negative comments on "Techfit." I really like the adidas Boost shoes, but can realistically only run in the Supernova Glide Boost shoes because of the toe box.

zPaincakes wrote:

Wait, are we saying nike or adidas is better?

It is elementary dear watson, the swoosh has failed where adidas has succeeded. The key word was "attempted".

shoe guru wrote:

Some pictures of the mystical BOOOOST energy capsules are found on this page:

http://www.core77.com/blog/materials/adidas_announces_new_boost_foam_material_24390.asp

Think of all the 'air-bag' contraptions Nike has attempted in trying to get that air-back shock absorption, and energy return. Then,look at all those big mystical energy cellsin the BOOOOST! Shazam!

Carry on!

Excellent article/video link, shoe guru. You can't watch these two videos and not be impressed. Great marketing. And I felt exactly what the videos show prior to seeing any of the articles or videos about Boost. Adidas really nailed it.

UNC Fan wrote:

Agree with the negative comments on "Techfit." I really like the adidas Boost shoes, but can realistically only run in the Supernova Glide Boost shoes because of the toe box.

I'm really interested in both the Adidas Adizero Adios Boost and the Adidas Boston Boost. Both have the standard mesh uppers rather than that Techfit crap. Anyone tried either of these? The toe box on the Adidas Supernova Glide Boosts is perfect for me, and perhaps the Adios and Boston would be as good or even better. Anyone?

The boost glide was $90 @ Holibird for 3 days last week. The boost energy ESM has a much better toe box. To wear the regular energy I have to go up a 1/2 size and the heel slips. Energy 2 is down to $100 and the esm is still $159.

Bleu wrote:

The boost glide was $90 @ Holibird for 3 days last week. The boost energy ESM has a much better toe box. To wear the regular energy I have to go up a 1/2 size and the heel slips. Energy 2 is down to $100 and the esm is still $159.

The problem I have with the Energy Boost/ESM is the Techfit upper. I don't like the constrictive, compression sock-like fit. It does look like a great show otherwise, though.